"All I want in life is a small, unfair advantage."
Hank Greenberg, Former Chair of AIG
When we play the game of Monopoly, every player starts with the same amount of money, and none of the property is owned. When we start out in real life, someone owns the railroad and utilities and the properties are developed. The parents of some players own good properties and collect rents. The parents of other players live on low-rent Baltic Avenue or are in jail. The Community Chest cards don't make a dent on that inequality. The Get Out of Jail cards are given primarily to the people who own the hotels.
Yet, amid that reality, we assert that all people are created equal. We want to believe our system reflects that value by offering equal opportunity to all. People have different and unequal needs. A "kinder, gentler" GOP under George H.W. Bush urged that "no child be left behind." Children should have educational accommodations to give them what they needed to succeed. Unequal accommodations created backlash, that is now a significant part of the current populist GOP. The "haves"--including the White working class--say it is unfair to them. Some educators say it is misplaced effort, because inequality is baked in the DNA of some people who fall behind.
Today Herbert Rothschild looks at the post that started this discussion, a post by Michael Trigoboff, a now-retired professor of Computer Science at Portland Community College. Rothschild graduated from Yale, then got his Ph.D. at Harvard and then taught English Literature at LSU. He has been an activist, donor, and volunteer for civil rights, the environment, and peace. He lives in Talent, Oregon.
Guest Post by Herbert Rothschild
Michael Trigoboff’s guest post in the January 20th Up Close addressed matters it’s important that our society gets straight--equality, equity and wokeness. His attempt at doing so fell short of helpful, however.
I won’t dwell much on wokeness. Its usage is too unstable to know, until one hears how someone uses it, whether one agrees or not. I think a basic description of it is an acknowledgement of the grievous injustices many groups experienced in the past at the hands of those who held power over them, and an attentiveness to the continuing consequences of those injustices. I don’t see why any fair-minded person wouldn’t agree that wokeness, understood in that way, is a proper outlook.
Equality and equity require more analysis. I’ll begin with a statement Trigoboff quoted with disapproval: "Every talent and ability is [sic?] distributed randomly and evenly among all the different subgroups of the population." Since he didn’t identify the source, I can’t be sure, but I suspect that the writer meant something quite different than Trigoboff took it to mean--not that everyone in any one group is similarly endowed, but that innate talent and ability are distributed in equal proportions in every group no matter what group it is.
For example, there are as likely to be proportionally as many gifted Black scientists as White scientists, female scientists as male scientists, if they have a chance to develop their innate abilities. And the reason it’s important to affirm this understanding of equality is that males insisted in the past that all females by nature are unable, say, to succeed at left-brained work and Whites insisted in the past that all Blacks are intellectually inferior. And then, acting on these unscientific assumptions, institutions controlled by White males provided less opportunity for females and Blacks to develop their abilities, thus fulfilling their own prophecy.
Here is how Trigoboff distinguishes between equality and equity: “Wokeness tells us to forget equality and emphasize equity instead. They reject equal opportunity (equality) and propose the substitution of equal outcomes (equity) instead. Every student should succeed, they insist, regardless of innate ability, level of interest, or willingness to work hard.” I don’t know who Trigoboff’s “they” is, but given his use of the key terms, it’s no wonder that he finds himself unhappy.
“Equity” certainly doesn’t mean “equal outcomes.” Actually, a commitment to equal outcomes falls under the purview of equality. Sometimes that would be a legitimate goal, sometimes it wouldn’t. For example, one would want all children in one’s society reach adulthood in good health. On the other hand, I can’t see anyone wanting every child to reach adulthood weighing 160 pounds. So, reasonable people make careful distinctions about what kinds of equality they seek. (More on this in the last paragraph.)
All of us would agree with Trigoboff that we want equality of opportunity. And not just because it’s fair to individuals but because it’s good for society. The more of us realize our potentials, the better off we all are collectively. I infer Trigoboff doesn’t think in those terms. And I know that he doesn’t recognize that providing equal opportunity requires equity, which (as almost everyone but he understands) means fairness.
Take the instance of dyslexic children. Except in severe cases, dyslexic children have the potential to read. However, teaching them to read requires different methods than are used in the regular classroom. Federal rules rightly require schools to give every child an “appropriate” education. In this case, “appropriate” means instruction in reading appropriate to those with dyslexia. That provision not only ensures equality of opportunity, but also something like equality of outcome--that is, they too will become readers. Will every child be as good a reader as every other child? That is not required. But a democratic society needs literate citizens and should devise policies to foster them.
I could multiply cases. Just one more. Equal access to a public facility can’t exist if we don’t make provide ramps, elevators, etc. for the physically challenged. With passage of the ADA, our society finally acknowledged that there can be no equal opportunity without differential treatment, and equity required that we provide it.
Trigoboff writes, “There are those of us who believe in intellectual integrity and the necessity of competence and excellence in the practice of the crafts we have devoted our working lives to.” Why does he think he’s in a minority? My guess is that the people who believe otherwise are few and far between. I’d be hard put to find anyone who would want me to perform open-heart surgery on their spouse or who would want Trigoboff to start as point guard for the Portland Trailblazers. Knocking down straw men neither advances our understanding of serious subjects nor validates claims of intellectual integrity.
10 comments:
Thoughtful and well said.
Every day millions spend their waking hours in the pursuit of their desires whatever they may be, but many struggle far more than is just. Is it not a virtue that we strive to right this imbalance? Is it not what the founders, however shortsightedly, intended? Is it so improbable that it actually might be a better world?
There seems to be a fear among some that we may "go to far" in our attempt to create a equitable society. Really? What does that even mean? It's a fear rooted in primitive beliefs that we are clearly in the process of evolving beyond.
I'd rather live in the hope of such a future than accept that the Universe has no more to offer humanity. This to me is actually "human nature", not some remnant of a feral primeval impulse.
Thank you, Mr. Rothschild, for explaining the lack of any contradiction between equality and equity. Centuries of brutal oppression and prejudice have deprived African Americans of equal opportunity and fairness, leading to major ongoing discrepancies between Blacks and Whites in social indicators such as housing, education, health, etc. “Woke” simply refers to awareness of these issues. It’s defined by Merriam-Webster as aware of and actively attentive to societal facts and issues, especially issues of racial and social justice.
Why anyone would become so distraught over something so benign is anybody's guess, but four years of Trump and its aftermath has made it obvious that Republicans don't particularly care for facts or justice. They’ve twisted ‘woke’ into a derogatory term for anything they don’t like, such as Black history, and use it as a racist dog whistle to rally their white nationalist base. In other words, it’s become part of the culture war they use to distract True Believers from their efforts to undermine democracy.
Herb Rothschild said:
I think a basic description of [woke ideology] is an acknowledgement of the grievous injustices many groups experienced in the past at the hands of those who held power over them, and an attentiveness to the continuing consequences of those injustices. I don’t see why any fair-minded person wouldn’t agree that wokeness, understood in that way, is a proper outlook.
If that was how the woke defined woke ideology, I would have no problem with them or their ideology. But that’s not what’s going on in higher education, publishing, or the mainstream legacy media.
For just one small example, in July of 2020, the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture published a chart defining “whiteness“ as: "objective, rational, linear thinking," "quantitative emphasis," "hard work before play," and various other values that most Americans would find positive, regardless of race or ethnic identity. At that moment, they were revealing something about the underlying identity politics aspects of wokeness that are usually de-emphasized by mainstream media coverage.
I taught at a community college for 20 years. I saw up close and personal the actual nature of woke critical social justice ideology. It is so far beyond the boundaries of normal common sense that you would have to have been there and seen it to believe it. Look at the chart I linked and see if you think the ideas in it match Rothschild’s understanding of the term “woke”.
Herb Rothschild said:
For example, there are as likely to be proportionally as many gifted Black scientists as White scientists, female scientists as male scientists, if they have a chance to develop their innate abilities.
This is what everyone wants to believe. But is it true? Has it ever been scientifically verified beyond a reasonable doubt? The actual answer is, no one knows. And we would all probably be better off if we just left it as an unknown.
I would be perfectly happy to leave it as an unknown, but wokeness (a.k.a. critical social justice ideology), requires that students in my classes pass at the same rate per capita for all ethnic/racial groups, because otherwise, there is a “disparity,” and that disparity is conclusive evidence of systemic racism.
In other words, the woke demand that I produce exactly the results that would happen if Rothschild’s assertion were true.
This is ideology enforcing “truths” that science has not established. This is The Church demanding that Galileo agree that the Earth is the center of the universe. This is the Soviet Union enforcing the ideological truth of Lysenkoism. This is the Church of Wokeness demanding that we all bend the knee.
No thanks.
The difference in understanding between Mr. Rothschild and Mr. Trigoboff regarding the meaning of ‘woke’ are an example of how conversations about race can be so easily derailed by using the same term in different ways. Mr. Rothschild obviously has a far better understanding of the meaning intended by those who coined the term. It’s standard practice for those whom it offends to try and pervert the term into something derogatory, just as they tried for 'social justice.'
Mr. Trigoboff, I'm trying to understand how the chart posted for some time (I gather it's been removed) on the website of the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture confirms your understanding that "woke" often goes "so far beyond the boundaries of normal common sense." I won't assert that no expressions of it go that far--as I said in my piece, the meaning of "wokeness" is too unstable to know whether one agrees with it until one hears how a particular speaker uses it. But I don't think the chart does so.
As I understand the chart, it is descriptive, not critical. That is, it is a catalogue of perceived "white" norms and values. I don't take it to mean that when something like "hard work" is listed, we are to take it as an erroneous value. It is what it is. Many items in the list are ones we might all subscribe to. A few are ones most of us might deem a mistake (e.g. wealthy = work), and some require nuanced discussion, like sacrificing present pleasure to achieve longer-term goals. I personally like everyone to be on time, but in some cultures that isn't so prized. OK. That's an interesting cultural difference to point out, and in practice one that needs to be worked out.
The institution said that the purpose of the chart was to stimulate conversation. I think it does. For me, obviously, it already has.
Mr. Rothschild,
If, for instance, “rational, objective, linear thinking“ is an attribute of “whiteness”, doesn’t that imply something about how requirements for it should not be imposed on people of color? Or perhaps a claim that people of color have something different that they do instead that might be superior? Or perhaps that we should not expect that mode of thought from people of color?
Isn’t rational, objective, linear thinking a good thing that we would like to teach to everyone? What purpose is served by attributing that mode of thought to “whiteness?“
One thing that wokeness claims is that “lived experience” should always trump reasoned analysis. This is an example of the kind of thing that goes far beyond normal common sense.
In 2014, Portland Community College held a monthlong event called “Whiteness History Month”. It was definitely not a celebration of whiteness.
Mr. Trigoboff, it seems to me that you are intent on feeling aggrieved, and that's why you keep interpreting materials in ways they weren't intended. In defense of our assertion--which I challenged--that the Smithsonian chart was evidence of "wokeness" taken to unreasonable lengths, you said, 'If, for instance, “rational, objective, linear thinking“ is an attribute of “whiteness”, doesn’t that imply something about how requirements for it should not be imposed on people of color? Or perhaps a claim that people of color have something different that they do instead that might be superior? Or perhaps that we should not expect that mode of thought from people of color?' I see no grounds for making those inferences. It was another example of emphases in White male culture, which has been the dominant culture here. Listing it doesn't simply that there is anything wrong with rational, objective linear thinking. It does imply that there are others ways of thinking as well, and that we should entertain the possibility that there is validity in other ways of thinking. My advice to you is to stop looking for grievances and try to understand other points of view in their best, most helpful senses.
Mr. Rothschild,
Here’s a quote from a NY Times article:
—> Singleton, who holds degrees from the University of Pennsylvania and Stanford, and who did stints in advertising and college admissions before founding what’s now known as Courageous Conversation in 1992, talks about white culture in similar ways. There is the myth of meritocracy. And valuing “written communication over other forms,” he told me, is “a hallmark of whiteness,” which leads to the denigration of Black children in school. Another “hallmark” is “scientific, linear thinking. Cause and effect.” He said, “There’s this whole group of people who are named the scientists. That’s where you get into this whole idea that if it’s not codified in scientific thought that it can’t be valid.” He spoke about how the ancient Egyptians had “ideas about how humanity works that never had that scientific-hypothesis construction” and so aren’t recognized. “This is a good way of dismissing people.“ <—
This is what wokeness is up to: casting shade on modes of thought that they claim are part of “whiteness.” My grounds are what the woke themselves say.
I understand that there are other modes of thought than linear. I’m a fan of them. But disparaging linear thinking and saying that valuing written communication causes “denigration of Black children in school” Is nuts. Don’t we want black kids to learn to write?
To answer the unspoken question: Yes, the War on Woke is all about racism.
Post a Comment